Cargando…

Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity

Self‐thinning and site maximum carrying capacity are key concepts for understanding and predicting ecosystem dynamics as they represent the outcome of several fundamental ecological processes (e.g., mortality and growth). Relationships are often derived using alternative modeling strategies, dependi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salas‐Eljatib, Christian, Weiskittel, Aaron R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6262744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30519405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4525
_version_ 1783375173176524800
author Salas‐Eljatib, Christian
Weiskittel, Aaron R.
author_facet Salas‐Eljatib, Christian
Weiskittel, Aaron R.
author_sort Salas‐Eljatib, Christian
collection PubMed
description Self‐thinning and site maximum carrying capacity are key concepts for understanding and predicting ecosystem dynamics as they represent the outcome of several fundamental ecological processes (e.g., mortality and growth). Relationships are often derived using alternative modeling strategies, depending on the statistical approach, model formulation, and underlying data with unclear implications of these various assumptions. In this analysis, the influence of contrasting modeling strategies for estimating the self‐thinning relationship and maximum carrying capacity in long‐term, permanent plot data (n = 130) from the mixed Nothofagus forests in southern Chile was assessed and compared. Seven contrasting modeling strategies were used including ordinary least squares, quantile, and nonlinear regression that were formulated based on static (no remeasurements) or dynamic data (with remeasurements). Statistically distinct differences among these seven approaches were identified with mean maximum carrying capacity ranging from 1,050 to 1,912 stems/ha depending on the approach. The population‐level static approach based on quantile regression produced an estimate closest to the overall mean with site‐level carrying capacity depending on tree species diversity and climate. Synthesis and applications. Overall, the findings highlight strong variability within and between contrasting methods of determining self‐thinning and site maximum carry capacity, which may influence ecological inferences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6262744
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62627442018-12-05 Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity Salas‐Eljatib, Christian Weiskittel, Aaron R. Ecol Evol Original Research Self‐thinning and site maximum carrying capacity are key concepts for understanding and predicting ecosystem dynamics as they represent the outcome of several fundamental ecological processes (e.g., mortality and growth). Relationships are often derived using alternative modeling strategies, depending on the statistical approach, model formulation, and underlying data with unclear implications of these various assumptions. In this analysis, the influence of contrasting modeling strategies for estimating the self‐thinning relationship and maximum carrying capacity in long‐term, permanent plot data (n = 130) from the mixed Nothofagus forests in southern Chile was assessed and compared. Seven contrasting modeling strategies were used including ordinary least squares, quantile, and nonlinear regression that were formulated based on static (no remeasurements) or dynamic data (with remeasurements). Statistically distinct differences among these seven approaches were identified with mean maximum carrying capacity ranging from 1,050 to 1,912 stems/ha depending on the approach. The population‐level static approach based on quantile regression produced an estimate closest to the overall mean with site‐level carrying capacity depending on tree species diversity and climate. Synthesis and applications. Overall, the findings highlight strong variability within and between contrasting methods of determining self‐thinning and site maximum carry capacity, which may influence ecological inferences. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6262744/ /pubmed/30519405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4525 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Salas‐Eljatib, Christian
Weiskittel, Aaron R.
Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
title Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
title_full Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
title_fullStr Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
title_short Evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
title_sort evaluation of modeling strategies for assessing self‐thinning behavior and carrying capacity
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6262744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30519405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4525
work_keys_str_mv AT salaseljatibchristian evaluationofmodelingstrategiesforassessingselfthinningbehaviorandcarryingcapacity
AT weiskittelaaronr evaluationofmodelingstrategiesforassessingselfthinningbehaviorandcarryingcapacity